FRC: Obama Plans to "Impose Homosexuality"
 

As seen on The Advocate, the Family Research Council, a whack-job fundie group, sent out an action alert which claims Obama wants to "impose homosexuality and silence Christianity in workplaces."


Impose homosexuality?!?!?!? Really!?! How... I mean... What the... SERIOUSLY? That statement is so obtuse I'm dumb-struck.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say those Liberals in DC actually do want to enact this plan. How would they go about it? Do they send goon squads into every Christian home, burn their Bibles, feed their crucifixes into a tree chipper, and point guns to their heads until they copulate with a member of their own sex?

I know the FRC is just trying to scare people, but doesn't this kind of ludicrous claim hurt their credibility? Sheesh, why don't they just say Obama is an alien from outer space and is the head of a galactic race that can only gain nourishment from eating Christian babies? :rolleyes:

Well, actually, these FRC types probably don't have a lot of crucifixes. They're predominantly Protestant, and crucifixes aren't their thing. (Alas, many of them think that the Catholic church is nothing less than the seat of the antichrist. Maybe not as widespread a belief as it used to be, but I still hear it often enough here in the South.)

It's scary to think that anyone takes this nonsense seriously, but these scare tactics really work. A lot of people in my family and circle of friends have started to parrot religious right talking points at me lately as though they are true, and they won't listen to my (hopefully reasonable) answers, because I'm a non-believer, so how could I possibly know. Grrrr....

Exactly. They are targeting idiots who already believe that homosexuality is a choice. It is infuriating. Disgusting and infuriating.

I don't see what's so ludicrous. They obviously don't mean you'll be forced to be homosexual but that you'll be forced to accept homosexuality in the workplace. And that's true. In the same sense that blacks were imposed on the workplace.

They're still horribly silly to be bothered by that.

It's very ironic that this is the same group who, given the chance, would impose their narrow brand of religion on everyone else and silence everyone who disagrees with them.

Yeah, that.

Every time I hear some nimrod complain that recognition of gay marriage would mean that children will be taught about homosexuality in school I wish I could respond with, "Yeah, so?" Damn right they will, they'll be taught that everyone has a right to be with whomever they choose to be with. And that's the way it should be.

But alas, such honesty is not effective in preventing nimrods from voting away people's rights.

Why is it with some people that whenever somebody's opinion differs from theirs, that person is a "radical?"

The same reason that when a judge's interpretation of the law differs from their religious beliefs, that judge is an "activist."

So you're going to teach your kid they'll be taught that everyone has a right to be with whomever they choose to be with. What is wrong with you?! Don't you know you have to protect future generations from this path to hell? Sheesh! [/sarcasm*]


*sometimes it seems sarcasm tags are still needed around these parts

--------

On a side note I told someones 9 y/o that 2 guys kissing was not wrong or disgusting. She came back with "but aren't you a Christian?" and when I told her "no" I thought her little head was going to explode. I did apologize to her dad - I am not that close to them and my brain to mouth filter was not working. Heck, on that topic I don't have one. In my world I don't associate with people who think homosexuality is wrong. I wasn't apologizing for saying it, but that courtesy apology when you just made a parents life a bit more difficult.

I think I was her first experience with someone who openly doesn't believe the same way her parents do. I hope it opens up dialogue and future conversations with her parents about not everyone believing the same way.

I don't share your certainty (but I'll agree it's a possibility). If that's what they meant, why didn't they say, "impose homosexuals"?